Thursday, June 11, 2020

Twiggy's BGI test kit "special deal" looking more and more like an Australian taxpayer funded bail-out of a failing Chinese Govt linked company

by Ganesh Sahathevan


BGI Genomics Co Ltd
SHE: 300676

Follow

133.70 CNY +1.14 
12 Jun, 10:14 am GMT+8 · Disclaimer



Open131.08
High136.10
Low130.48
Mkt cap50.01B
P/E ratio167.38
Div yield0.075%
Prev close132.56
52-wk high136.31
52-wk low54.47

BGI's share price dipped but has then been on an uptick from just before the Australian deal was announced on or about 30 April 2020

It has been previously reported on this blog that the Australian Government's AUD 320 Million acquisition of WuhanCOVID test kits supplied by BGI is equal to approximately 60% of BGI's last audited annual revenue.


The BGI test kits that Australia  acquired may well be of doubtful quality. Nevertheless Australians have been told that they are lucky that BGI has agreed to supply them; the kits may have gone elsewhere for a better price if not for a  special deal that Twiggy Forrest (via his Minderoo Foundation) secured for Australia on the strength of his relationship with China's BGI.

The Guardian has since revealed that "the take-up of the BGI tests has been patchy. Many state public pathology bodies said they had no need for the tests, contrary to prior government claims that they would be used by public health units throughout 2020."


Additionally :


Pathology Technology Australia, a peak industry body that represents manufacturers and suppliers of testing technology, says its members supply 90% of all pathology tests and associated technology used in Australia.

“We had completed and submitted a very detailed audit of the current technology already in Australian laboratories for this kind of testing, and we had determined there was more than enough technology already in the field to significantly ramp up testing.

“Where we lacked a little bit was that there was a tightness of supply of some of the crucial consumables … but that was being pretty well managed speaking frankly.”

The peak group, which has also made a submission to the inquiry into Australia’s Covid-19 response, said the entire purchase and implementation could have been far smoother if industry had been consulted.

This is beginning to look like a an Australian taxpayer funded bail-out of a Chinese Government linked company. As reported the stock price graph above shows, the share price collapsed just after listing.



TO BE READ WITH 

Saudi's will get 9 Million test kits plus six labs from BGI, subject to progress payments, for just 25% more than Twiggy Forrest's special deal: Australian National Audit Office scrutiny required before any money is handed over for test kits that may well be inaccurate;Australian deal equals 60% of BGI's last audited revenue

by Ganesh Sahathevan

 



SHE: 300676

Follow

104.95 CNY −5.02 
30 Apr, 10:19 am GMT+8 · Disclaimer



Open106.00
High107.50
Low103.56
Mkt cap43.39B
P/E ratio131.98

Div yield0.095%
Prev close109.97
52-wk high118.86
52-wk low54.32

Web results

BGI share price since listing in 2019


Let it not be said that the Singapore Law Society does not have a sense of humour: On the SLS' legal training MOU with Australia's College Of Law

by Ganesh Sahathevan




                                 College Of Law CEO Neville Carter & SLS President Gregory
                                                  Vijayndran SC   


In 2018 Gregory Vijandran SC ,speaking as President of the Singapore Law Society had this to say of of the  College Of  Law Australia


“The Law Society could not have asked for a better partner to build expertise among Singaporean lawyers, given the College’s track record, pedigree and brand."
In 2014 the Australian legal industry newsletter Justinian reported: 

Slicing-up the pie for the post-admission legal education market ... Lots of loot at stake as College of Law tries to push the NSW Law Society off a cliff ... Constitutional amendment ... Getting out from under the skirts 
IT'S dreadful to have to report an unhappy stand-off between the Law Society of NSW and its love child the College of Law. 

The COL wants to break its ties with the society and has pressed for a change to its constitution so as to remove the Law Soc's power of veto over major decisions.

Last month Joe Catanzariti, the chairman of the College of Law, wrote to the Law Society asking that the relationship between the two bodies be terminated. The COL claims that the Law Society's role on its board of governors is conflicted because it also engages in continuing legal education, one of the COL's core businesses. 


Quoting the then CEO of the NSW Law Society Michael Tidball , Justinian reported:

"It is understood that the College of Law is currently losing market share in the PLT market, and it may well be that there are potential commercial openings for the law Society of NSW in pursuing the growth of new streams of business activity. Done in a strategic way, this development could strengthen our membership retention in the years ahead." 


Meanwhile the SLS has refused to answer queries about its MOU with the College Of Law. The College has previously said that it was expending into Asia via its College Of Law Asia (also referred to as the College Of Law Asai Pacific. The latter two entities were said by the College to be headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, and led by a director, one Peter Tritt. SLS has refused to say which entity it had signed the MOU with.
The question is not academic, a trick question on an a company law or contract exam; as reported last year in the investigative news site New Malaysia Times, Tritt has left Kuala Lumpur ,without a replacement, leaving very many questions about the College's MOU with the Malaysian Bar Council:


TO BE READ WITH




Bar Council education ‘JV’ must be clarified

By  , in Scandal on July 19, 2019 . Tagged width:  ,  , 

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.
The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.
bar council
The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.
NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:
Dear Rajen,
We can’t remain silent on this.
Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor
Sent from my iPad
It is understood that “Rajen” refers to  Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.
The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.
Key person suddenly retired during extensive query
The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.
It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.
Questionable advertising claims?
In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.
Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.
He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of  “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.
As CEO of the College Carter  has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.
Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.
-NMT
SEE ALSO
MOU between Law Society and College of Law (Australia)Law Society and the College of Law
(Australia) (“COL”) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) on 19 March 2018 for an initial period of 5 years to jointly develop legal education and training programmes for the legal profession in Singapore. COL is the largest provider of practice-focused legal education in Australia and New Zealand, and this is very much aligned to our approach towards CPD activities. This collaboration will allow our members to be prepared for a future where lawyers will need deep expertise not just in their practice areas, but in business and marketing as well. Besides developing joint training programmes, there will also be many opportunities for both organisations to work together on thought leadership initiatives in practice management, lawyers’ well-being/self-care, crossborder legal practice. This exciting collaboration with an institute of higher learning is a first for the Law Society, as we seek to strengthen our training capabilities to cater to the different learning needs of our members. For a start, a series of e-learning programmes from COL will be added to Law Society’s existing e-learning programmes. Members can look forward to an expanded list of e-learning programmes to assist them in fulfilling their CPD requirements for 2018. Do keep a lookout for our e-mailer or visit our CPD portal for more information: http://www.lawsoc.org.sg/en-gb/elearning.aspx

"Lots of loot at stake as College of Law tries to push the NSW Law Society off a cliff": College Of Law problems in the public domain not disclosed in the NSW LPAB's annual reports since 2015 , even as the COL was losing market share for its PLT

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Slicing-up the pie for the post-admission legal education market ... Lots of loot at stake as College of Law tries to push the NSW Law Society off a cliff ... Constitutional amendment ... Getting out from under the skirts 
IT'S dreadful to have to report an unhappy stand-off between the Law Society of NSW and its love child the College of Law. 

The COL wants to break its ties with the society and has pressed for a change to its constitution so as to remove the Law Soc's power of veto over major decisions.

Last month Joe Catanzariti, the chairman of the College of Law, wrote to the Law Society asking that the relationship between the two bodies be terminated. The COL claims that the Law Society's role on its board of governors is conflicted because it also engages in continuing legal education, one of the COL's core businesses. 

Quoting the then CEO of the NSW Law Society Michael Tidball , Justinian reported:
"It is understood that the College of Law is currently losing market share in the PLT market, and it may well be that there are potential commercial openings for the law Society of NSW in pursuing the growth of new streams of business activity. Done in a strategic way, this development could strengthen our membership retention in the years ahead." 


Readers looking for any mention of any of the above in the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board's 2014-2015 Annual Report will find no reference to any of the above, despite the fact that the NSW LPAB  is responsible for determining if the College Of Law can continue offering the PLT. The non-disclosure adds to the  deficiencies in the NSW LAPB's Annual Reports, with regards the College Of Law in the 2015-2016 Annual Report, and then again in the 2018-2019 Annual Report, which excluded complaints against the College made by this writer,  based on evidence from Malaysia. The College has since come under scrutiny in Malaysia.

As a result of the NSW LPAB's protective mantle the College of Law continues to offer the PLT throughout the country, despite well known, long standing deficiencies in the substance, structure and delivery of its PLT. The NSW LPAB's failure to disclose any of the above in its annual reports and instead report only that it continues to support the College as a provider of the PLT  misleads potential lawyers, and the general public to whom the College offers its courses. On the strength of its NSW LPAB accreditation the College has attempted to diversity into South East Asia and the United Kingdom.

Ultimately it falls on the Chairman of the NSW LPAB, the Chief Justice Of NSW Tom Bathurst to correct the errors, but he has refused to do so.

It then falls to the NSW Auditor General Margaret Crawford  to draw attention to these issues, but she too has remained silent, despite being made aware of these issues. Meanwhile taxpayers are left bearing the cost.


TO BE READ WITH



LPAB foray into international politics, 1MDB and a HK IPO demand that the Chairman (the CJ NSW) signs off the accounts


August 04, 2019





What the 1999 Annual Report of the German listed Beate Uhse AG has to do with the Legal Profession Board NSW's lack of proper disclosure requiresexplanation; now read on.

In August 2018 the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB), which is part of the Department Of Justice, and under the purview of the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman, issued a document which held this story that can be found on the Net to be true:



Ganesh Sahathevan, RPK, Clare Brown, Ginny Stein And The Blood Money Trail


The article was in fact an attack on the current Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad,accusing him of bribing the ABC's 4 Corners program to broadcast a false story about the then prime minister Najib Razak.


In doing so the LPAB implied that the 1MDB theft, described by former US Attorney General Jeff Sissons as the biggest case of kleptocracy in history, was in fact a conspiracy engineered by Mahathir,and this writer.


The circumstances that led to the above have not been included in the LPAB's 2017-2018 Annual Report, or in any other public statement from the LPAB. The LPAB and its chairman the Chief Justice Of NSW Tom Bathurst have maintained their silence despite the incident above being reported nationally by he Australian on 17 January 2019 in the story copied/pasted below.



This silence is reminiscent of the lack of information in the LPAB's annual reports about its dealings with the political donor Minshen Zhu, and its part in Zhu's HK IPO of his company, Top Education Group Ltd:


TOP Education Institute's Bachelor of Laws : Political donations,HK Stock Exchange IPO seem to have left regulators confounded, speechless

The background to the LPAB's involvement with Zhu is interesting also given the role played by LPAB member Dr Gordon Elkington :

NSW Liberal donor Minshen Zhu's Top Group, the LPAB,the AG,and Sharon Austen Ltd

Sharon Austem Ltd was a dot com era IPO promoted by among others Legal Profession Admission Board member Dr Gordon Elkingtoon.The company collapsed a year or so after its ASX debut in 2000 but information about its IPO is still available in the public domain.The German listed Beate Uhse AG 's 1999 Annual Report (cover above ) is one example.Kate Askew's Dot.bomb is another. In contrast, Dr Elkington's work at the LPAB which led to the 2018 IPO in Hong Kong of Top Education Group Ltd remains shrouded in mystery ,with the LPAB making only the most limited of disclosures.


END

The acquittal of Musa Aman: As with Riza Aziz ask why there was no evidence; and ask who ought to be held responsible.

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Former AG Gani Patail ha no evidence to prosecute Musa Aman,and neither
did his successor Tommy Thomas ,despite trying to locate the evidence for more
than a year and a half





The acquittal of Musa Aman has raised a stink despite the fact that there was no evidence. The Star, quoting Attorney General Idris Harun reported:


“Documentary evidence from companies and banks which were expected could not be obtained through Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters from Hong Kong.
“The Department of Justice Hong Kong advised that companies and banks in Hong Kong are only required to keep records for seven years and it is highly unlikely that neither the banks nor the companies would still have the records,” he said, adding that some witnesses for the prosecution have passed away, suffered serious medical ailments or are not in Malaysia anymore.

That there was no evidence raises the question as to why the case was revived  by the AGC under AG Tommy Thomas after it had been discontinued by the AGC under AG Ghani Paail. As former AG Ghani swore in his affidavit which was relied on by current AG Idris Harun:

“This decision is strengthened by a letter dated Dec 22,2011 from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Hong Kong stating that their investigation against Musa Aman is complete and on the basis of known facts no further investigative action will be pursued."

Given the earlier lack of evidence the AGC under AG Tommy Thomas could have only revived the prosecution against Musa Aman if fresh evidence had been obtained. He could have only done so pursuant to powers granted the Attorney General pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Malaysian Constitution. 

The 145(3) discretion allows the AG to look at matters anew, and make a fresh decision to prosecute based on novel evidence. He does not actually "re-open" an old case.This limitation on the AG arises from the fact that the  Article 145 excludes any review of an AG's decision to prosecute or discontinue a prosecution. 

The question then should be this: why did the AGC "re-open" the old case against Musa Aman when there was no fresh evidence? 

Readers are reminded that in the  October 2019 hearing of the matters against Musa Aman DPP  Datuk Umar Saifuddin Jaafar   told the court that  there was “still pending evidence over the remaining charges.” That was after Musa was acquitted of five charges for lack of evidence.

As with Riza Aziz ask why there was no evidence; and ask who ought to be held responsible.




TO BE READ WITH


Sunday, May 17, 2020


Public exchanges between AG Idris Harun & predecessor Tommy Thomas raise even more questions about Malaysia's 1MDB investigation and prosecution of Najib Razak: Crucial evidence of the paper trail seems to have been ignored, and nothing done to investigate and recover 1MDB funds

by Ganesh Sahathevan


                                                                   
           Why were Riza Aziz's offer of a plea bargain even considered? Why has not more been done to recover all and any assets he might have that can be traced back to 1MDB money


In the latest chapter of the public debate between Malaysia's current Attorney General Idris Harun and his predecessor Tommy Thomas, Thomas has said in a second press release issued on 18 May 2020: 

I took into account the benefits of the AMLA Act 2001 when I decided

 to charge Riza Aziz in July 2019 with 5 money laundering offences punishable under Section 4(1) of that Act for receiving proceeds of unlawful activities, between April 2011 and November 2012, totalling USD248 million of monies belonging to 1MDB. I was satisfied that the prosecution had a very strong case to establish the ingredients of the offencesThe documentary trail was substantial and highly credible.


Tan Sri Idrus states that “Malaysia is expected to recover approximately USD108 million”. With the greatest of respect, this is a red herring. By personal diplomacy, we established strong relations with DOJ after I took office. They have returned billions of ringgit, and more monies may be released in future by DOJ. The purpose of prosecuting Riza was not to strengthen our chances of securing monies from DOJ. DOJ would have rettourned(sic) these monies in any event because it belongs to Malaysia and was stolen from Malaysia. Riza is not offering to pay any new money or monies from any source other than DOJ seized assets. The USD108 million, would in any event be returned by DOJ to Malaysia. Thus, Riza is unnecessarily getting credit for returning monies that are not his. Hence, it is a sweetheart deal for Riza but terrible for Malaysia.



Readers are reminded that the paper trail with regards Riza Aziz begins in Malaysia and from 1MDB. The paper trial can be deconstructed into two or three separate phases, the first phase being the initial theft from 1MDB for which Najib Razak has been charged and is being tried. 

However, the prosecution in the Najib Razak SRC and 1MDB trials have never made any reference to a clear paper trail, relying instead on a galaxy of witnesses to prove their point. 
Despite the fact that the DOJ had done much of the work in establishing the paper trail and seizing the assets DOJ officers were never called as witnesses, and their investigation papers never entered into evidence.  
If the prosecution had a very strong case against Riza, then the case against Najib should be by definition and in relative terms, open ans shut, concluded a long time ago.This has clearly not been the case and instead the public has been kept entertained by defense counsel Shafee Abdullah's playing the trial judges for fools, almost literally like performing dogs.
It was not his fault that he did so but that of the prosecution who seemed unable to present a precise, clear line of attack.

Additionally, it does appear from Thomas's press statement that the Malaysian Government seemed uninterested in pursuing any investigation of its own, happy instead to rely on the DOJ's work. This is curious, for the best evidence was always going to be in Malaysia, and out of the DOJ's reach. As this writer pointed out last year:

PM Mahathir need only look to AMMB and ANZ in his quest to recovers all monies stolen by Jho Low-More on what else Malaysia should do, but is not ....



The above suggests that there is something very wrong at the Attorney General's Chambers, and this was evident as early as 31 January 2020 while Thomas was still AG. Despite the stated objective of seeking a custodial sentence with significant penalties against Riza, Deputy Public Prosecutor Norzilati Izhani Zainal informed Sessions Court judge Rozina Ayob on that date that the AGC was considering Riza's representation's submitted to the AGC on 18 November 2019. From what we now know of the representation, the AGC ought to have rejected it without further consideration. Thomas has said as much in his latest press release.
Are we to believe DPP 
Norzilati Izhani Zainal was off on a frolic of
her own? 

END 

TO BE READ WITH 
Press Release Dated 18 May 2020 Issued By Former Attorney General Tommy Thomas


1. As I have been mentioned on numerous occasions in the media release issued yesterday by my successor, Tan Sri Idrus bin Harun, I have to put the record straight a second time.

2. I took into account the benefits of the AMLA Act 2001 when I decided to charge Riza Aziz in July 2019 with 5 money laundering offences punishable under Section 4(1) of that Act for receiving proceeds of unlawful activities, between April 2011 and November 2012, totalling USD248 million of monies belonging to 1MDB. I was satisfied that the prosecution had a very strong case to establish the ingredients of the offences. The documentary trail was substantial and highly credible. Upon conviction, the prosecution would have invited the trial judge to impose a sentence commensurate with the severity of the offences, the maximum being 15 years for each charge. But more significantly, the criminal court is given power by Parliament to additionally impose a penalty up to 5 times the amount involved in the unlawful activities, that is 5 times USD248 million, which would work out to some USD1.2 billion. We would have sought this sum upon his conviction.

3. As Public Prosecutor, I personally decided to prosecute about 25 cases. In each of these cases, I was briefed by MACC or the police and DPPs. I probed deeply. My decision-making process took time. From my trial experience, evidence gathering continues from initiation of proceedings until completion of trial. Only when I was satisfied that the prosecution could secure a conviction, did I make the decision to prosecute. It was always a deliberate and properly analysed decision. That same rigour was brought to the decision to prosecute Riza. In none of these 25 odd cases, did I consider favourably a request by any accused to settle on such terribly poor terms to the prosecution. That would have called into question the wisdom and integrity of my decision to prosecute in the first place.

4. In paragraph 2 of Tan Sri Idrus’s media release, reference is made to a minute I made on 19 November 2019 to Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram on the letter dated 18 November 2019 from Riza’s solicitors. That indeed was my style. After having read that letter, I wrote a couple of words or sentences to him. I have no access to the original letter with my handwriting. Because of this handicap, I cannot comment on it.

5. What is abundantly clear is that I did not make any decision in relation to Riza’s representation up to the date of my resignation, 28 February 2020. A decision of this importance involving billions of ringgit and significant public interest would be made by me in writing. I did not, and none exist.

6. With regard to communications with the 2 major actors, my successor and Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, the position is as follows. I have not communicated with Tan Sri Idrus since 28 February 2020. This is not unusual. I did not communicate with my predecessor during my tenure. I spoke on a couple of occasions with Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram over the telephone between 28 February and 14 May 2020, but this subject was never raised by him. Hence after my resignation, I was kept in the dark on this and all other matters.

7. In Paragraph 3 of the media release, Tan Sri Idrus states that “Malaysia is expected to recover approximately USD108 million”. With the greatest of respect, this is a red herring. By personal diplomacy, we established strong relations with DOJ after I took office. They have returned billions of ringgit, and more monies may be released in future by DOJ. The purpose of prosecuting Riza was not to strengthen our chances of securing monies from DOJ. DOJ would have returned these monies in any event because it belongs to Malaysia and was stolen from Malaysia. Riza is not offering to pay any new money or monies from any source other than DOJ seized assets. The USD108 million, would in any event be returned by DOJ to Malaysia. Thus, Riza is unnecessarily getting credit for returning monies that are not his. Hence, it is a sweetheart deal for Riza but terrible for Malaysia.

8. Finally, even the timing of Riza’s DNAA is bizarre. In both civil and criminal proceedings which proceed to trial, a plaintiff or the prosecution loses substantial leverage over the adverse party if it withdraws court proceeding before the terms of settlement are completely performed. This is elementary. Hence, one needs to question why Riza has been given a DNAA so prematurely.

9. Since Tan Sri Idrus is at pains to emphasize the weight he gave to my so called ‘agreement in principle’ (which itself is a fiction), let me state publicly that I would have never sanctioned this deal. I would have lost all credibility in the eyes of the people of Malaysia whom I endeavoured to serve as public prosecutor to the best of my ability, honestly and professionally if I had approved it. I would have betrayed the trust the Prime Minister and the PH government had reposed in me.

Tan Sri Tommy Thomas
18 May 2020